search

ncmathan / pe

0 stars 0 forks source link

unnecessary details shown in architecture diagram in DG #13

Open ncmathan opened 10 months ago

ncmathan commented 10 months ago

image.png The parameters in Patient class need not be shown for architecture diagrams in DG.

nus-se-bot commented 10 months ago

Team's Response

No details provided by team.

The 'Original' Bug

[The team marked this bug as a duplicate of the following bug]

Unnecessary low level details in the class diagram

Note from the teaching team: This bug was reported during the Part II (Evaluating Documents) stage of the PE. You may reject this bug if it is not related to the quality of documentation.

Unnecessary low level details about the Patient class are included in the class diagram for the model component, which is not really required at the high-level of abstraction followed in the rest of the diagram.

image.png

[original: nus-cs2103-AY2324S1/pe-interim#5815] [original labels: severity.Low type.DocumentationBug]

Their Response to the 'Original' Bug

[This is the team's response to the above 'original' bug]

Thank you for your suggestion. However, our team, who are also the developers and maintainers of this application, believes that providing details for the attributes of a patient (similar to how AB3 shows the classes for the patient attributes in their class diagram for the Model) is helpful to the understanding of the component's structure. We had to include the Patient attributes (Name, IcNumber classes etc.) as attributes as opposed to boxes/classes (like how Tag and Record are shown) in the UML class diagram as we felt like this is more readable and takes up less space. Hence, we regret not accepting your suggestion!

Items for the Tester to Verify

:question: Issue duplicate status

Team chose to mark this issue as a duplicate of another issue (as explained in the Team's response above)

Reason for disagreement: [replace this with your explanation]

## :question: Issue response Team chose [`response.Rejected`] - [x] I disagree **Reason for disagreement:** It would have still have made more sense to include the patient attributes as individual classes as it could have provided abit more clarity on whether those attributes are compulsory or optional. For Record, the multiplicity is `1` and for Tag it's `*`